logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.07.26 2019노1443
업무상횡령등
Text

1. All the judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and two months;

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed on the Defendant by the prosecutor of the first instance judgment is too unfasible and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, ex officio, filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance against the judgment of the court of first instance. The prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance.

The trial court decided to hold a joint hearing of the above appeal cases.

As long as the facts constituting the crime of each judgment of the court below are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, they should be judged simultaneously and sentenced to a single punishment, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained further.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows, without examining the above ex officio reversal grounds.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of occupational embezzlement), Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 49(4)2 and 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (the point of lending means of access) of the same Act, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. From among concurrent crimes, it is recognized that the defendant's reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act recognize and reflects all of the crimes of this case, and that the defendant has no criminal records exceeding the same criminal records and fines.

However, each fraud of this case is the purpose of investment funds by acquiring money from victims.

arrow